Sarah, the Occupy Melbourne protestor stripped publically of her "tent dress" in Flagstaff Gardens has applied for an intervention order against police. As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald and on Ninemsn Sarah went to the court on December the 7th to make her application. She was refused entry to the court wearing her tent costume in another bizarre example of authorities determining what is and what isn't clothes. Were they afraid she would occupy the court? An investigation by the Police Ethical Standards Department has also been launched after a complaint by Sarah.
The brilliance of Sarah's non-violence civil disobedience is that she has taken her right to wear a tent as clothes seriously. She would not change her clothes in the park when asked and she is now attempting to get redress for having her clothes removed. It would not be a surprise if Sarah has to enforce her rights through the courts in same way people did after the Tasty nigtclub raid in the 90's by Victoria Police. Sarah's actions have highlighted and exposed the levels the authorities are prepared to go to harass and intimidate Occupy Melbourne in an attempt to shut down their calls for fairer and more peaceful world.
Comments
Sarah should sue the pants off these authoritarian bastards
Sarah should sue the pants of these authoritarian bastards. Police are paid for by the people and must stop attacking the public. This reminds me of the Telecom worker who was sacked because he wore a caftan to work. Perhaps we need to redifine what constitutes clothing
You will have to prove it's no longer a tent you're wearing
I don't like what the police did, but she has 'f' all chance of getting an intervention against the cops. the courts are used to apply actions by the laws (of which, as much as it sucks, she has broken)and where possible try to consider what is reasonable where there is a grey area.
if you drove a car into the park, put your legs out and called the car "automobile clothes" would you expect the same treatment? you will have to prove that the item is no longer a tent when you put it on. and that's where the idea of 'reasonable' comes in. could a majority of people look it and say "yes, that's a tent". just because you claim it to be clothing, doesn't make it so.
it's a shit result because I support occupy. but that's that reality of her situation.